I disagree with your proposed delay. First, there is an established
consensus on the rules, namely those that are in the existing
checkstyle-5.0.xml file. The reason they are the current consensus is that
they are there in the trunk, and nobody has objected to them. I do not care
to object to them at this time, and merely applied them as they stand.

I did nothing to change those rules in my patch, and saying that you wish to
effectively delay incorporating the patch until there is a consensus about
what is there already appears rather odd, if not counterproductive.

What is most important overall is to eliminate all warnings. Period. As fast
as possible. My patch does that, so please commit it without delay. We can
then, over time, decide if the existing rules are overly conservative or
overly liberal. But that is not going to be a useful way to spend our time,
it is much better to just use what is there, and when something goes outside
of that set, there are adequate mechanisms to deal with it, which I
described in my patch.

The alternative is to merely continue to propagate the current warnings.
Frankly, I was and am very surprised at the apparent lack of particularity
with respect to treatment of warnings. One of the six principles of "The
Apache Way" is "consistently high quality software". For me, every warning
is a black mark against quality. Let's not continue to propagate this state
of affairs. Now that FOP 1.0 has been released is the best time to move
forward, so why delay now?


On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:34 PM, <> wrote:

> --- Comment #5 from Vincent Hennebert <> 2010-08-10
> 06:34:29 EDT ---
> Hi Glenn,
> Thanks for your patch. However, as I said we need to agree on a
> project-wide
> Checkstyle configuration first. Before enforcing a no-warning policy it is
> necessary to reach consensus among all the developers on a set of rules
> that
> everyone is happy to follow.
> We'll have a look at your patch once this is done. Meanwhile, I'll look at
> the
> parts that fix compilation warnings.
> Thanks,
> Vincent
> --
> Configure bugmail:
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug.

Reply via email to